rate throughout for the whole four years, as a percentage on the labor. and all of the monthly equipment rental rates were fixed and anvil builders, in fact, sbe certified and also have a disadvantage of veteran's business, who actually will be supplying the design and the electrical connections. and they have an agreement with usa hoists to provide all of the equipments which is leased to the project. so the contract will, in fact, exceed the 80 percent sbe. and we agreed with the negotiation of 9.25, approximately a million under the next lowest bid. all of the three proposals were inside of the original estimate.

so the staff is really quite comfortable to recommend that the board authorizes the contract for 9.2 million to anvil builders. are there any questions? >> i just have one quick question. and so, being that you had three applicants but two were not responsive, because they didn't submit all of the required documents? did we get an understanding as to why that happened during the process? >> it would appear that that would, pure laziness, frankly and it was obvious in the documents and they signed off the check as to say that they had done all of this and provided it and yet it is like fly america, all of these documents which were required, were just not signed and submitted. a successful one has every single piece and i considered the longer one than any of the

others. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> okay. >> move approval. >> yes. >> the first and second and members of the public, wishing to address you under this item? >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item 8 is approved. >> thank you. >> could we call item number nine. >> authorizing the executive director to execute a professional services agreement with acom services to provide a envier impact statement, preparations service for the transbay center program for an amount of $1.3 million and a two-year term. >> directors brian dikes will also report on this item. >> this contract is to provide, supplemental work, supplemental to the previous feis, eir which was certified in march of 2004.

and the reasons for this is that there are changes of a little more small things, and there are changes to accommodate, high speed rail requirements as we have designed the project and we are now at 30 percent of the structures. to make it easier, here is a picture of what is involved. the first thing is that the approach radius were increased from 500 to 650. it is still, but, we wanted to keep as close as possible within the existing right-of-way and we do, of course, with these larger, do effect a couple of properties that were not in the original documents. we also needed four and longer lengths of the platforms, hence what was agreed as when we get the high speed rail in we will in fact face to extend the

platforms from bills street to main street underground and so that is the rail extension part of it. in addition to that, the original, the final designs of 30 percent design, has revised, smoke, exhaust plants, ventilation structure, in fact, with the secondary access. so, while we always had a ton of... down at fourth and king, and we always had an open excavation as we turned the corner so that we could work from there, we are also using two other properties along the way, for secondary access during the construction and we will in fact have the shaft excavate from and we will put in those shafts all of the vent equipment and structures at the top. and while we do own one of these properties it is

different from the original documents where the intention was in fact a vent in the city streets which is what they used to do in the old days in new york and it is not acceptable any more. and the other property down on the corner of third and towns is in fact a new property. and it currently is owned by mcdonald's. we will also do one of two other minor pieces that were not fully covered in the previous document and really being out dated and one of those is the underground pedestrian tunnel which will now in fact we have decided to be a straight shot down beal street to embarcadero station and you can see where you are going. it would be underground, people-mover, with remarkable on either side. and we issued an rfp for this work in august of this year.

we received a single proposal on september the 28th. briefly this proposal was from a large company, very well qualified and when we checked up afterwards. we found that small companies found that there was too much scope of work within this and too many things to do that any one small company could not do it by themselves and the other major companies could have done this. are really already conflicted out because like urs, pass and transportation group and already heavily involved as designed on this project all for high speed rail. so we do need an independent company doing this. we had technical evaluation and the proposal was extremely well presented. and we interviewed them. and they had the right staff. and we completed the contract negotiation after the interview

this month. just by way of saying it, on themselves is a well qualified company and could have done all of this work or nearly all of it themselves. but they conducted to ten small sbe companies to cover specialized work and they are all in fact, companies five of them in san francisco, that we worked with before, with specialized knowledge on and can use that without having to reinvent and have done the traffic counts for other projects for the city planning and they have done, hazardous material inspection and they have down archaeological and historical building works all for us. and so it is a very good team that acom has put together and no need for a learning cycle and they actually propose a schedule of 14 months which was less than what we would advertise. so we look forward with all of this experience that they have and some of the individuals on it worked for other companies

and another company which did in fact some of the high speed rail. so really, you can go in and you have one proposal. we got the best one, and i would have wanted in the first place and so i have no hesitation in recommending the board of directors to authorize this contract for a two-year period just in case we get into many questions, which sometimes happens in environmental work. >> thank you, any questions from board members? >> yes? >> director harper? >> i probably showing my ignorance here lack of not being here for a while. but there is a lot of construction work, i understand that. but i can't think of a significant environmental impact saying, yeah they better check for this or that. has anybody run through an initial study of what they are

looking at? >> yes, we have done initial work through the transportation group. the additional construction work which makes noise and so on, and i don't think that it is huge, and it is underground most of it. but, the extension from beal street to main street effects a property that was never in the original environmental documents. to have it take to build station under. fortunately, we are in that building, that is where our office is and we have already met with the owners. but, there is always... because you are going to do something with the land above it and we are actually going to put an inner city bus terminal there for the long-distance carriers. so, that is a change to the environment in that area. and you do need to go out to the locals. the other thing is because of the... there are two properties that we were not even going to touch now we have to work

either to preserve one of them is got a historical significance, and we will work underneath it to protect it. but again, this has not... the owners of these properties need to have a chance for a say. the vent structures we want to make sha clear and because they are above ground structure and they vent smoke. they may never vent smoke. we may never have a train fire. i prefer that to be the case. but certainly a lot of transit projects and other cities have had problems with vent structures and people, and we have done our best to provide some preliminary designs which we think will get rid of those concerns. >> those are good examples. i was just curious, thank you. >> director metcalf? >> i am really glad that we are talking about the extension of the cal train i am hope thating we spend more time as a board on this.

i have no concerns whatsoever about ecom or the price. i am concerned about the scope of what is in this and what i know from talking to other people in the community is that the various partners that will be necessary to connect cal train to the transbay terminal do not agree about the alignment. the san francisco mayor's office and i am the mayor's appointee to this board does not agree with this alignment. i don't believe that the san francisco county transportation authority does. getting agreement between the various parties in addition to the high speed rail authority and cal train is the task ahead for us. the, i believe, i have a great

concern about opening a supplemental and then locking ourselves in and then telling ourselves that we can't reopen it. i know that we have to do a supplemental eir but i don't think that we yet know what should be in it. >> i just add on that that question. because i had a related question. and so i was actually curious because i know that we are also in discussion and this is largely around how we fund, high speed rail and dtfs in the long term and that there has been conversations about kind of a much, much ambitious project that involves development and undergrounding and lots of lots of other things and i was curious as to whether that might be part of a different phase and that is why the scope of this face two was so limited? >> if i could respond to that. we were asked by the federal rail administration as a continue of the 400 million

that they allocated to us that they extend the platforms and the radii. we applied to the federal transit administration for a grant specifically to do that and that is all we were... the money we were given was to do just the specific work that the fra asked us to do as a condition of the 400 million. so we cannot add more to the scope because there is only, so much money. because that is the first point, the second point is that to my knowledge, cal train and high speed rail are supportive of our alignment and the work that we are doing as art lloyd can attest to. we can certainly have a discussion director. but at this point, we have a cleared environmental document. and we are in the new starts pipeline. we have got only so much time, to get the funding that we need in order to start construction under the new start schedule and we are proceeding along the

cleared environmental document that we have and we are do what the fra asked us under this very specific scope of the money that they granted us so we can't add to the scope that does not preclude doing what you indicated about reopening things but we were given a grant to specifically comply with what fra asked us to do and that is what we are doing. >> which of the various things that you proposed that could be part of the scope, which are the ones that the fra requires the gpa to do. >> the increasing of the radii at the structure and the lengthening of the platforms. >> yes, and the fta, who in fact, funded this required us to put the vent structures in because of the programs that they have had on other projects. >> and >> yeah. i would very much endorse what the director said.

we are not ruling out what might happen separately to the downtown extension. what the discussions that i have had with the city have not been to realign downtown extension, it is what to do with the yard and four and this what for do with the approaching for the south, which was never thought of dtx or any extension. we were extending from the existing station, to downtown. >> right. >> and that really does not take on the responsibility for the south. >> right. >> and we would put them as partners. >> thank you. >> director lloyd wanted to comment as well. >> thank you. >> just a comment that we at cal train are moving forward with the electricitifiation and so we are moving forward and we are going to move

forward regardless on what happens on the high speed rail. we are working with them to possibly not do additional track work other than separations other than grade separations which i believe in holely as one of the big things to get down. but that is our procedure. we are moving forward and we will cooperate completely with your staff. and also installing the old coast daylight and i am on the board that and and that is moving forward and we will be getting close to getting that done. so that we will have a direct train service from san francisco and los angeles. >> and i can accommodate the director, we work to make sure that that happens. >> there are any other questions or questions

specifically to this item? >> director metcalf. >> in the long run i do not think that it is clear if the fourth and king cal train station will remain a station or if there will be other alignments that we all end up believing would be preferred. i think that we need to be undertaking a process, with all of the partners. that will be necessary to pay for and get this project completed. and try to see if we can come up with an alignment and a design that everybody can agree to. i have concerns about spending money on ir that has a likelihood of having to be redone. i know in the scope of the project, a million dollars may not be that much. but there is... i wonder about the wisdom of proceeding. >> four and this king will be... will stay as a station.

however, maybe not all trains will stop there. because, and that whole mission bay area is very important to the cal train right now and as far as the yard, only looking at it as someone who has been in the business all of his life. we will have to have some storage. because you are not going to have storage done on the transbay terminal. >> the trains during the rush hour, especially may have to dead head back and be stored at fourth and king. i don't know the answer, i will find out. >> and director, we have to as a condition, of the 400 million dollars that fra gave us do this supplemental work. >> correct. >> we have to do it otherwise you are saying fra take the $400 million back. >> and that is part of our... i agree. >> so, what i am hearing though, is that this is something that we do have to move forward with, regardless. but we do want to have a larger conversation, because we do know regionally that there are

conversations about dtx and cal train and what that also mean for the fourth and king rail yard as well as the 280 and a number of other kind of larger more complex issues around kind of the full, kind of development. and director metcalf i am hearing that you are concerned that maybe some of the scope of that work should be included in this extension as well. >> i think that it would have been potentially more efficient for us to do it that way. if i may just make a concluding comment >> sure. >> i will vote for this with the strong expression that i would like us to begin a multistake holder process to try to resolve the questions about phase two, in a way that all of the major funding parties, can be on the same page. >> and so, maybe potentially, in december, january and we can agendaize something on the calendar to have a broader discussion and i think that outside meetings will need to

take place in between them. >> yeah, it is my understanding the mayor's office is julianne is leading that effort already. >> yeah, she is. >> okay. >> i move authorization. >> we do have a motion. we have a motion and a second. but we have public comment on this item. >> we have a member of the public adina leven who would like to provide comments to you on this item. >> good morning, directors i am with friends of cal train and so, we are a community advocacy group with a goal to have stable funding and successful modernation of cal train and we were very glad to cecal train moderization be funded via the high speed rail project. we are looking to see the trains arrive to transbay, as soon as possible.

and we are happy to see the blended system move forward as something that has the best balance of costs appropriate, capacity, and meeting the needs of the corridor. so, that said, in terms of the environmental work going forward one of the things that observers have noticed, is that the old plan for transbay, there are some significant miss matches between that plan and the actual capacity of the blended system and also, the value to san francisco and to riders and cal train. so for example, the approximately half of the trains according to the old plan would turn around at fourth and king. and in terms of rider ship and capacities and the needs of san francisco the revenue for cal train having as many trains as

possible go into san francisco would be the ideal thing to have happen. and there are also are questions also regarding the alignment and whether the current alignment is actually the most cost effective and the layout of the stations is there any room for improvement in terms of number of riders and the effectiveness of that line in the long term. so i am very glad to hear director metcalf raise these issues and you know we certainly, strongly encourage in either this project segment or subsequent project segments to address the miss match between the current older plan and the needs of the blended system and the long term ridership and revenue goals of cal train and the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, very much.

>> is there any other public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> all right. seeing none. we do have a motion and a second. >> can we take a roll call on this item. >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item nine is approved. >> thank you. and we will look off the schedule for a broader discussion on dts and cal train at future board meetings in the next couple of months. item number ten. >> approving the arise participation level of 8.3 percent for years, 2010 to 11 to 12 to 13. and we did get in the informational presentation at our board meeting, i believe in september or october. so, if you could just give an update since then. >> right >> and the director sarah galatty will report on this. >> i thought that i would give

a little bit of background since director was not here in september. i have to leave in two minutes any way. >> well the brief update is that we did put the revised goal of 8.5 percent out for public comment. we also had a small and disadvantaged business roundtable at our offices and got a lot of good suggestions but no comments that would lead us to revise the goal so we are recommending approval of 8.5 percent for the remainder of the fiscal years. >> i am curious about the feedback that we got that was helpful, i think that this is a goal that all of the directors share in terms of increasing minority in small business participation. >> yeah, the roundtable that we have, we have represented from asian american architects and hispanic chamber of commerce, california small business association, etc., etc., several woman's groups as well. most of the feedback had to do

with out reach, we are to really get word out about contract opportunities that these small businesses are looking at. and places like bidsink making sure that our website is easy to navigate and that we are sending out notices which we do. they also had some feedback on matching up the goal setting process that you go through, a process of matching the industrial classification codes and looking at the dbes available in those areas and they have suggestions on which codes to use that would capture the smaller businesses than just the big urses and etc.. >> i appreciate that. what the out reach has done. >> thank you. >> is there any other discussion or questions? >> seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> do we have a motion for this item? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and a second? >> second. >> and roll call. >> thank you, with that director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd

>> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye and item ten is approved. >> item number eleven. >> approval of the minutes of the october 11th 2012 meeting. >> i know that director harper will abstain from this vote. can we take a roll call on the minutes for october the eleventh, 2012 >> yes, members of the public anything that they wanted to address you? >> director harper? >> do we have a motion to move this forward. >> moved, second. >> my apologies. >> with that, director harper, abstaining lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> that is three, ayes and item eleven is approved. >> item number 12. >> is the areview of on 007, for california code. >> and galati will crpt on this

item. >> directors this is required by the california government code as well as the investment policy be reviewed annually even if we are not proposing any changes. we are not proposing any changes at this time. objectivities of our investment policy remain the same, safety, liquidity and return on investment has a much lower priority. we currently keep most of our cash in a u.s. bank checking akoupt. we obviously do not keep a high cash balance it goes in from the funders and goes out to the contractors. and we do have a trustee account with deucshbank. most of which will be in trescy notes that will come to end of the year. and we will look at investment options at that time. but looking at the economic out look and what we think that interest rates may do in the future as well as cash flow needs we probably will choose

investments with short maturities so we can month forward. i am happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? >> seeing none, thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> okay. >> do you have a motion on item number 12. >> it is informational. >> i am sorry. >> at this time, we are done with our special calendars. so i will take a motion to convene and to closed session, is there a motion to do that. >> so moved. second. >> so we will at this time. convene into closed session. so we do ask the members of the public to please exit the room. >> and no members of the public did indicate that they did want to address you on the item. >> my apologies about that. >> if there are any members of the public that want to address the board of directors on this >> back in session, and council

will report on the closed session. >> this is a report on the action taken in closed session with item 13. >> the tba board of adirectors approved by a vote of 5-0 a purchase and sale agrees to sale 101 first street to the to*efr llc, for $188 million plus escalation, for all cash to close on or before april one, 2013. and approved to related agreement regarding the operations of the transbay tower project. >> thank you. >> are there any other items or announcements? >> that concludes your agenda for today. >> seeing none, meeting ais journed. >> thank you.